Robbery (Germany)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The robbery is a fact of German criminal law . It is standardized in Section 249 of the 20th section of the Special Part of the Criminal Code (StGB) . The offense combines the acts of theft ( § 242 StGB) and coercion ( § 240 StGB) and provides them with an increased threat of punishment compared to both offenses. The acts of robbery are carried out by anyone who takes away another person's movable property by means of force against a person or under threat of a present danger to life and limb . A prison sentence of one to fifteen years can be imposed for the robbery .

The serious robbery regulated in Section 250 of the Criminal Code qualifies the robbery to be certain types of commission of this offense with heightened threat of punishment. The successful qualification § 251 StGB covers the case that the perpetrator causes the death of another person through his robbery. The criminal offense of robbery extortion ( Section 255 of the Criminal Code) is closely related to robbery .

In 2017, 38,849 robberies were reported. This accounts for less than one percent of all reported crimes. The clearance rate of 55.1% was at a high level compared to other reported offenses.

Normalization

The offense of robbery is standardized in Section 249 of the Criminal Code and has been as follows since it was last changed on April 1, 1998:

(1) Anyone who with violence against a person or using threats with a current risk to life or limb takes away another person's movable property from another person with the intention of unlawfully appropriating the property to himself or a third party shall be punished with imprisonment not less than one year.

(2) In less serious cases, the penalty is imprisonment from six months to five years.

Due to the minimum penalty of one year imprisonment, robbery is a crime according to Section 12 (1) StGB . Therefore, according to Section 23 (1) StGB, attempting and according to Section 30 (1) and (2) StGB certain preparatory acts are punishable. According to § 138 Paragraph 1 Number 7 of the Criminal Code, § 249 of the Criminal Code is also an offense for which failure to report may be punishable.

The offense of robbery, with its combination of theft and coercion, serves to protect two legal interests: property and the victim's freedom of will .

History of origin

The current structure of German robbery offenses, in which a distinction is made between robbery and extortion, is based on the nineteenth section of the Prussian penal code of 1851. The modern offense of robbery is based on its § 230. After the establishment of the Reich , this standard was changed as § 249 into the 1st January 1872, which came into force, was integrated into the Reich Criminal Code. According to this, a prison sentence was imposed on anyone who with violence against a person or with the use of threats with present danger to life or limb took away another person's movable property from another in order to appropriate it for himself.

On August 4, 1953, the Third Criminal Law Reform Act made the Reich Criminal Code known as the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany. There was no change to Section 249 of the Criminal Code. A first change to this standard took effect on September 1, 1969. In the course of the abolition of the penitentiary, the penitentiary sentence was replaced by the threat of imprisonment, the duration of which is at least one year. A further change was made by the sixth criminal law reform act of 1998, in the framework of which a characteristic of the subjective offense was added to § 249 StGB. According to this, robbery also comes into consideration in cases in which the perpetrator does not want to appropriate the booty himself but to a third party.

The robbery qualification of § 250 StGB has also existed since 1872. This norm also underwent its greatest change in the course of the sixth criminal law reform act of 1998. The minimum penalty compared to other criminal offenses was reduced from five years imprisonment to one year, the offense was revised in terms of language and the qualifying features were redrafted. § 251 StGB has also been part of the StGB since 1872. This standard has been revised several times through penal reform laws, but only to a minor extent. § 255 StGB has existed essentially unchanged since 1872.

Objective fact

Theft is made up of the facts of theft and coercion: A robbery is committed by someone who takes away another person's movable property with the help of qualified coercion.

coercion

According to Section 249 (1) of the Criminal Code, two means of coercion can be used to commit robbery: violence against a person and threat of a current danger to life or limb. Neither action variant presupposes that the addressee of the coercion is also the owner of the thing, so that coercion of a third party can also constitute a predatory offense.

According to the definition of the Federal Court of Justice, violence is physically acting coercion through the development of strength or through other physical influence, which, according to its intensity and mode of action, is suitable for impairing the free decision-making or will-activity of another. Examples include knocking down a person and locking them in. Bringing a narcotic to paralyze the victim is also an use of force. Tearing away the booty is an use of force if the perpetrator has to use strength to do so, for example because the victim is resisting. On the other hand, the perpetrator does not use violence by stealing the victim's booty without the victim resisting, for example because the perpetrator surprises the victim with his attack. In such a case, the perpetrator uses less violence than cunning.

Jurisprudence understands a threat to be the announcement of a present evil, on whose occurrence the perpetrator pretends to have an influence. The threatened evil can relate to either the life or the body of the victim. In the latter case, the threatened evil must be of sufficient intensity to do justice to the injustice of the robbery. This applies, for example, to the threat of bodily harm . A threatened evil is present when the victim can assume that it is imminent. Unless the offender accountable position holds towards the victim, the offender can also use the wrongful omission threaten a risk of rejection.

Removal

With regard to removal, there are no differences in the starting point compared to the offense of theft: removal requires the breach of strangers and the establishment of new custody of a movable object. The factual feature of removal distinguishes robbery from robbery extortion regulated in Section 255 of the Criminal Code. In many cases, however, it is difficult to distinguish between the two offenses, as both offenses are based on coercion, which means that they overlap. How this conflict can be resolved is controversial in jurisprudence:

According to a view that is also held by the case law, robbery is a special case of predatory extortion. He is characterized by the fact that the perpetrator takes the matter. In the case of predatory blackmail, on the other hand, he lets the victim hand her over to him. The delimitation of the two offenses is based on the external appearance of the event.

Some legal scholars object to this view that it does not correspond to the legal system: § 249 and § 255 StGB are designed as offenses of equal value with different protective purposes. While robbery serves to protect property, robbery blackmail protects property. In addition, according to the opposing view, the robbery is superfluous because of the identical penalties for both offenses, since each robbery also represents a predatory blackmail. This could not constitute a meaningful interpretation of the law. Therefore, they differentiate between robbery and predatory extortion based on the victim's point of view, similar to what happens with theft and fraud. Critics of the jurisprudence view as a characteristic element of robbery extortion that the victim undertakes the act that leads directly to property damage. To distinguish between the two offenses, they expand the objective fact of predatory extortion to include the criterion of disposal of assets, an unwritten factual feature that is also used in fraud . Such an order exists if the person required decides from several options to enable the perpetrator to access the matter. On the other hand, a removal occurs if the victim assumes that he has been exposed to the perpetrator in such a way that the perpetrator is custody regardless of his or her participation.

Causal relationship

It is controversial in jurisprudence whether there has to be a causal connection between coercion and removal in such a way that coercion enables or at least facilitates removal.

According to the prevailing view in jurisprudence, such a link is not necessary. The injustice of a robbery is characterized by the will to combine coercion and theft, so that an objective connection is not important. According to this view, the objective fact of robbery is already fulfilled when the perpetrator commits coercion and removal. It is therefore irrelevant whether the coercive act actually allows or facilitates the removal.

The opposite view, however, demands that the coercion objectively promotes the implementation of the theft. According to this, it would therefore not be an accomplished robbery, for example, but only an attempted robbery if the forced victim is willing or able to offer resistance, since in these cases the duress has no effect on the success of the removal. According to the first-mentioned view, which rejects the requirement of a causal link, there is, on the other hand, a complete robbery.

Subjective fact

Intent

According to Section 15 of the Criminal Code, the offender must act with conditional intent with regard to the objective facts, i.e. recognize the essential circumstances of the offense and at least approve of the success of the removal. Furthermore, the subjective offense of robbery includes the special subjective offense features of coercion and theft.

Purpose of appropriation

The perpetrator must act with the intention of appropriating the matter . This appropriation intention is divided into an appropriation intention and an expropriation intention. The concept of appropriation intent describes the targeted will of the perpetrator. to take possession of the thing at least temporarily. The perpetrator acts with the intention of expropriation if he approves of the fact that the victim will not regain the property control to which he is entitled. This is lacking, for example, if the perpetrator wants to take the matter temporarily, but plans to return it to the victim later or if the perpetrator wants to use the matter as a means of pressure against the victim.

Final context

In addition, the perpetrator must want to use coercion to enable the removal, for example to overcome actual or potential resistance of the victim. This end-means connection between coercion and removal is what jurisprudence calls the final connection.

The final context assumes that there is a close temporal and spatial relationship between coercion and removal. If there is a greater time gap between the two components, say several days, this connection is missing, so that the assumption of a robbery is excluded.

Since the coercion should enable or facilitate the removal, the assumption of a robbery comes into consideration only if the perpetrator uses the coercion before or during the removal. Done it, however, until after completion of taking or summarizes the offender after committing the assault the decision to take away one thing the victim, therefore is no lack of prey Final context. However, a sufficient Final relationship exists if the perpetrator by a breach of duty omission forces: for example, turns the culprit that captivates his victim first and then decides to removal of a thing, even by violence that it does not exempt the victim from his chains. If he consciously takes advantage of this fact when he is taken away and if the failure to exempt, as required by Section 13 of the Criminal Code, corresponds to coercion through active action, he is committing a robbery.

attempt

An attempt is made if the perpetrator is determined to commit a robbery and immediately starts coercion, for example by approaching the victim with an assault weapon. In contrast, it is usually not sufficient to start immediately just to remove it, since no final connection between coercion and removal can be achieved in this way.

Qualifications

Serious robbery, § 250 StGB

Serious robbery according to § 250 StGB is an aggravating qualification of the robbery. It leads to an increase in the minimum penalty to three years imprisonment.

Section 250 (1) StGB

(1) A custodial sentence of not less than three years can be recognized if

1. the perpetrator or someone else involved in the robbery
a) carries a weapon or other dangerous tool,
b) otherwise has a tool or means with him to prevent or overcome the resistance of another person through violence or threats of violence,
c) the act puts another person at risk of serious damage to health or
2. the perpetrator commits the robbery as a member of a gang that has joined forces for the continued commission of robbery or theft with the assistance of another gang member.
Carrying a weapon or a tool (No. 1 a)

On the one hand, carrying a weapon or other dangerous tool has an aggravating effect . This qualification factor corresponds to § 244 paragraph 1 number 1 StGB, which is why it can be interpreted in parallel to this and raises the same issues. The perpetrator carries the criminal offense with him if he has it ready when committing the offense in such a way that he can use it at any time without great effort.

weapon

As weapons objects which are intended to injure a person, such as firearms , batons or thrusting weapons . Sporting weapons are also relevant . The case law also classifies charged alarm pistols as weapons .

Dangerous tool

Dangerous tools are objects that do not have such a purpose, but are also associated with a special danger for the victim. In jurisprudence, however, it is disputed which criteria are used to determine this dangerousness.

When introducing Section 250 (1) No. 1 a of the Criminal Code, the legislature wanted to tie in with the concept of dangerous tools under Section 224 of the Criminal Code. In the context of this standard, such objects are considered to be dangerous tools that cause significant injuries to a third party in the specific way they are used. The danger can therefore be assessed on the basis of the use of the means of crime. Section 250 (1) of the Criminal Code, however, starts at an earlier point in time by punishing not first using the object, but rather carrying it with you. Therefore, the dangerousness of the means of crime cannot only result from its use, but must be determined separately from it. Difficulties here are that, when viewed in the abstract, almost every object has the potential to seriously injure another.

A part of jurisprudence assumes a dangerous tool if it presents a potential danger similar to a weapon. It is countered that this is too vague to allow a meaningful interpretation of § 250 StGB. Others consider a tool dangerous if the perpetrator reserves the right to use it against a person when committing an offense. The objection to this is that this approach is associated with considerable problems of evidence because it focuses on the will of the perpetrator. In addition, the standard overlaps with this interpretation with number 1b, the use of another tool.

Other tools or means (No. 1 b)

Other tools or means are items that cannot be classified as weapons or dangerous tools. This circle of suitable means of offense, which is even wider than in number 1a, is restricted by the fact that the perpetrator must want to use the object to coerce a person.

In particular, false weapons fall under the offense of number 1b. These are objects that only appear dangerous to the victim without actually representing a danger. Toy weapons are exemplary. In contrast, the case law does not subsume objects that are obviously harmless, since the perpetrator does not use the object, but only the appearance of such an object. A punishment according to § 250 StGB is disproportionate in such case constellations. For this reason, the case law rejected the application of Section 250 StGB, for example in cases in which the perpetrator used a lipstick or a metal pipe to simulate a weapon.

Risk of damage to health (No. 1 c)

Section 250 (1) number 1 c provides the robbery with increased penalties if the perpetrator intentionally puts another person at risk of serious damage to health. Such damage occurs when the victim's physical integrity is severely impaired over the long term. This is the case, for example, if the victim suffers from an illness or is unable to work for a long period as a result of the offense.

There is a risk of damage to health if the damage is so likely that, from the point of view of the victim, it only seems random whether it will occur or not. The endangerment must be a direct consequence of the robbery. This applies, for example, if the threatened victim has a heart condition and is therefore at risk of suffering a heart attack as a result of being coerced by the perpetrator. In contrast, it is not sufficient if the victim is only endangered as a result of the removal, for example because the perpetrator takes away essential medication. In this case, the endangerment of the victim is merely a consequence of the theft contained in the robbery, but not a consequence of the robbery as a combination of theft and coercion.

Gang-like behavior (No. 2)

The punishment under Section 250 (1) StGB is also sharpened if the perpetrator commits the robbery as a member of a gang . This qualifier corresponds to Section 244 (1) number 2 StGB, which is why both facts are interpreted in parallel. A gang is a union of at least three people who band together to continue to commit robbery.

Section 250 (2) StGB

(2) A custodial sentence of not less than five years can be recognized if the perpetrator or someone else involved in the robbery

1. used a weapon or other dangerous tool in the act,
2. in the cases of paragraph 1 no. 2 carries a weapon or
3. another person
a) severely physically mistreated during the act or
b) puts the act in danger of death.

Section 250 (2) StGB regulates particularly serious robbery. This paragraph standardizes several types of commission for which the legislature considered an increased threat of punishment compared to § 250 paragraph 1 StGB to be necessary, as they are characterized by an increased injustice content. The particularly serious robbery leads to an increase in the minimum penalty to five years imprisonment.

On the one hand, the use of a weapon or a dangerous tool in the act has a qualifying effect. Use is when the offender not only carries the object with him during the act, but uses it to coerce the victim. Whether an object is a dangerous tool is determined in the context of paragraph 2 according to its specific use.

It also has an aggravating effect if the perpetrator commits the robbery as part of a gang and carries a weapon with him. This feature combines two qualification elements of Section 250 (1) StGB. Finally, Section 250 (2) number 3 of the Criminal Code covers cases in which the perpetrator willfully either severely physically abuses another person or puts another person at risk of death.

Section 250 (3) StGB

(3) In less serious cases under paragraphs 1 and 2, the penalty is imprisonment from one year to ten years.

Section 250 (3) StGB contains a reason to mitigate the sentence. According to this, the penalty framework is reduced to one to ten years imprisonment, despite the implementation of a feature of Section 250 Paragraph 1 or Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code, if the offense is a less serious case . This applies if the guilt realized by the perpetrator iscomparatively small, for example because the booty obtained from the act is small.

Robbery resulting in death, § 251 StGB

If the offender causes the death of another person at least recklessly through the robbery (§§ 249 and 250), the penalty is life imprisonment or imprisonment for no less than ten years.

Systematic classification

Section 251 StGB contains a successful qualification of robbery, which leads to an increase in the minimum penalty to ten years imprisonment. In cases in which the guilt of the perpetrator is particularly serious, the court can alsoimposea life sentence. According to Section 11 (2) of the Criminal Code, the offense that is qualified as a combination of an intentional and a negligent act is treated as a deliberate offense.

Offense

The offense of § 251 StGB presupposes the killing of another person. This does not necessarily have to be the victim. However, the killing of offenders or participants in the act is not covered by Section 251 of the Criminal Code.

The killing must be based on the specific danger of the robbery. This is the case, for example, if the perpetrator coerces the victim in a life-threatening manner, for example by inflicting serious injuries or by using a firearm. On the other hand, it is not sufficient that death occurs as a result of the removal, for example if the perpetrator steals necessary medication from the victim, since this only affects the danger of theft, not the danger of the combination of theft and coercion. A sufficient connection is also lacking in cases in which the victim's death occurs as a result of the victim injuring himself in pursuit of the fugitive offender.

What is disputed in jurisprudence is the extent to which there is a sufficient risk context if the killing occurs after the robbery has been completed. This is the case, for example, if the perpetrator shoots himself an escape route after the removal of the thing and kills someone in the process. In some cases, the connection is generally denied in such cases, since the killing after completion of the robbery, i.e. after the completion of coercion and removal, cannot be based on the specific danger of the act. Others, including the case law, on the other hand, understand the formulation of the offense by the robbery to the effect that typical accompanying consequences that occur after the robbery has been completed can also be covered by Section 251 of the Criminal Code, since it is irrelevant for the dangerousness of the offense whether the killing occurs before or after completion of the robbery. The objection to this view is that it exceeds the wording of Section 251 of the Criminal Code and leads to an overlap with predatory theft ( Section 252 of the Criminal Code).

The perpetrator must cause death willfully or recklessly . A frivolous act exists if he realizes death in a particularly negligent manner, so the possibility of a fatal outcome of his act should have been imposed on him. This is the case, for example, if the perpetrator seriously injures the victim with a knife while committing the robbery and then leaves them behind. If the death is caused by one of several participants in the robbery, all those involved are responsible for the death who at least carelessly misjudged the possibility of the fatal outcome.

An attempt under Section 251 of the Criminal Code can be committed in two ways: On the one hand, the perpetrator can bring about the death of another person, while he does not succeed in completing the robbery, i.e. it only remains an attempt. This is known as a qualifying attempt. On the other hand, the perpetrator can succeed in the robbery, while the attempted killing fails. Only the successful qualification is attempted here.

Litigation and sentencing

The act is prosecuted ex officio as an official offense, so that a criminal complaint is not required. The threat of punishment is generally between one and fifteen years imprisonment. Pursuant to Section 256 of the Criminal Code, the court can also order conduct supervision pursuant to Section 68 of the Criminal Code if there is a risk that the perpetrator will commit further offenses after serving his sentence. The amount of the penalty is determined in particular by the value of the booty and the intensity of the coercion.

According to Section 249 (2) of the Criminal Code, the threat of imprisonment is reduced to a range of six months to five years if the case is less serious and the perpetrator's guilt is comparatively low. This comes into consideration, for example, if the perpetrator acts under the influence of intoxicants or the prey is of low value.

The robbery is deemed to have ended when the perpetrator has secured custody of the loot. From this point begins according § 78a of the Criminal Code, the limitation period . The statute of limitations for robbery is twenty years due to its scope of punishment according to § 78 paragraph 3 number 2 StGB. Robbery resulting in death expires after thirty years due to the threat of life imprisonment in accordance with Section 78 (3) number 1 of the Criminal Code.

Law competitions

If further offenses are committed when a robbery is committed, these offenses are in legal competition with one another . Theft and coercion are inevitably brought about by an act according to § 249 StGB, which is why they are displaced by the robbery as a more special and serious crime. This also applies to standard examples ( § 243 StGB) and qualifications ( § 244 , § 244a StGB) of theft.

The competitive relationship with the deprivation of liberty ( Section 239 of the Criminal Code) depends on whether the deprivation of liberty is used solely for the use of force and thus results in the realization of the robbery, or whether it actually has a different or additional function. In the latter case, a unit of offense ( § 52 StGB) between the two offenses may be considered. The same applies to bodily harm ( Section 223 StGB) and their qualified forms of inspection ( Section 224 StGB). The robbery can be in unity with a predatory attack on drivers ( Section 316a StGB) preceding the robbery.

The competitive relationship between robbery and robbery extortion is controversial in jurisprudence: The view that separates both offenses according to their external appearance sees in robbery the more specific offense that suppresses predatory extortion. According to the opposing view, the commission of a robbery precludes the commission of a predatory extortion.

The implementation of § 251 StGB suppresses negligent homicide ( § 222 StGB) as a more serious offense. If the perpetrator acts with intent, the robbery qualification in Section 250 (2) number 3 b of the Criminal Code is suppressed. In order to realize a murder ( § 211 StGB), however, according to § 251 StGB, the offense stands in unity, since the offenses express different injustices.

criminology

Recorded cases of robbery in the years 1987–2017.

The Federal Criminal Police Office annually publishes statistics on all criminal offenses reported in Germany, the police crime statistics . The entire federal territory has been covered since 1993. The statistics from 1991 and 1992 included the old federal states and all of Berlin. Earlier statistics only cover the old federal states.

The crime statistics do not keep the robbery in isolation, but summarize it with the robbery-related offenses such as robbery blackmail, robbery attack on drivers and robbery theft ( § 252 StGB) under one key.

The number of robberies has been falling for several years. The share of robbery offenses in all crimes recorded by the police crime statistics is below 1%. In an international comparison, this represents a small proportion. Among violent crime , robbery accounts for around 25% in Germany. About half of the reported acts are cleared up by the investigative authorities. Compared to other offenses, the clearance rate is therefore at a high level.

About half of all robberies take place on publicly accessible paths and places. The clear-up rate for this street crime is low compared to other types of robbery. Robberies on shops, post offices and banks account for a significantly lower proportion. These forms of inspection are explained particularly frequently.

The proportion of young suspects is comparatively high at almost 30%. This age group frequently commits acts of robbery in the form of handbag robbery. The proportion of suspects over sixty is increasing. Legal scholars estimate the damage caused annually by robbery at 59 million euros.

Police crime statistics for robbery offenses in the Federal Republic of Germany
Cases recorded With a gun
year All in all Per 100,000 inhabitants Proportion of attempted acts

(absolute / relative)

Shot Threatened Clearance rate
1987 28,122 46.0, 5,677 (20.2%) 233 3,248 47.5%
1988 28,952 47.3 5,712 (19.7%) 180 3,012 46.4%
1989 30,152 48.9 5,539 (18.4%) 178 2,964 43.8%
1990 35.111 56.0 6,221 (17.7%) 234 3.159 43.7%
1991 44,638 68.7 7,777 (17.4%) 299 3,832 41.4%
1992 46,845 71.2 8,224 (17.6%) 310 4,269 41.4%
1993 61,757 76.3 9,895 (16.0%) 445 5,597 42.6%
1994 57,752 71.0 9,642 (16.7%) 413 5,411 43.9%
1995 63,470 77.8 10,675 (16.8%) 427 5,824 45.8%
1996 67,578 82.6 11,797 (17.5%) 470 6.334 47.4%
1997 69,569 84.8 12,849 (18.5%) 475 6,520 48.4%
1998 64,405 78.5 12,564 (19.5%) 399 5,958 49.9%
1999 61,420 74.9 11,892 (19.4%) 359 5,510 50.4%
2000 59,414 72.3 11,519 (19.4%) 330 5,320 50.5%
2001 57,108 69.4 10,504 (18.4%) 280 4,878 50.9%
2002 58,867 71.4 10,532 (17.9%) 226 4,667 50.2%
2003 59,782 72.4 10,950 (18.3%) 269 5,250 50.0%
2004 59,732 72.4 11,280 (18.9%) 254 4,990 50.8%
2005 54,841 66.5 10,123 (18.5%) 236 4,424 50.9%
2006 53,696 65.1 10,075 (18.8%) 213 4,250 51.5%
2007 52,949 64.3 10,062 (19.0%) 208 3,860 51.5%
2008 49,913 60.7 9,777 (19.6%) 173 3,503 52.8%
2009 49,317 60.1 9,852 (20.0%) 150 3,876 52.6%
2010 48.166 58.9 9,697 (20.1%) 160 3,773 52.6%
2011 48.021 58.7 9,836 (20.5%) 163 3,488 52.7%
2012 48,711 59.5 9,538 (19.6%) 144 3.164 51.0%
2013 47,234 58.7 8,743 (18.5%) 146 2,467 51.7%
2014 45,475 56.3 8,648 (19.0%) 117 2.211 51.6%
2015 44,666 55.0 8,558 (19.2%) 133 2.176 51.7%
2016 43.009 52.3 8,813 (20.5%) 116 1,906 52.0%
2017 38,849 47.1 7,880 (20.3%) 131 1,766 55.1%

Related facts

Predatory extortion, § 255 StGB

Robbery extortion is closely related to robbery ( § 255 StGB). This offense is fulfilled by anyone who extortion ( § 253 StGB) through violence against a person or by using threats with present danger to life or limb. The penalties for extortion by robbery correspond to that of robbery, so that the robbery qualifications apply to an act under Section 255 of the Criminal Code.

Due to the overlap between robbery and predatory extortion, the area of ​​application of predatory extortion is controversial in jurisprudence: According to the case law, predatory extortion, as distinct from robbery, is acts in which the perpetrator does not take away the booty but gives himself to the victim leaves. This is the case, for example, when he forces the victim at gunpoint to hand over money and valuables. According to the counter-view, only those acts are to be classified as predatory extortion, in which the cooperation of the victim is necessary so that the perpetrator can obtain the booty. This is the case, for example, when the loot is locked in a safe.

Robbery, § 252 StGB

Robbery theft is also closely related to robbery ( Section 252 of the Criminal Code). This fact, too, is characterized by the combination of removal and coercion, which is why the penalty for robbery corresponds to that of robbery. Therefore, the qualification of serious robbery ( § 250 StGB) and the successful qualification of robbery resulting in death ( § 251 StGB) apply to the offense .

In contrast to robbery, the use of coercive means is not used to carry out the removal, but only after the removal. The offense was designed for situations in which the perpetrator, after completing a theft, is struck by a person in the act ( red-handed ). Affected is when the perpetrator is found at the scene of the crime within a close spatial-temporal connection to the theft. It is not necessary that the victim actually perceives the perpetrator.

The offense of predatory theft is fulfilled if the perpetrator in such a situation coerces the person arriving in order to maintain possession of the prey. This is the case, for example, if he knocks down the residents of the apartment when he escapes.

Predatory attack on drivers, Section 316a StGB

The predatory attack on motorists, standardized in Section 316a of the Criminal Code, records effects on a motorist or passengers that are committed using the special conditions of motor vehicle traffic in order to subsequently carry out a robbery. Special conditions are those that typically result from participation in public transport and mean that the victim can only defend himself against the attack to a limited extent.

Section 316a StGB contains asignificantly higher minimum penalty of five years imprisonmentcompared to Section 249 StGB. This is based on the fact that the victim can only defend himself to a limited extent due to the traffic situation and the offender creates a danger for other road users through his attack.

Legal situation in other states

The robbery offenses under Swiss criminal law are similar to those under German law. The offense of Art. 140 Paragraph 1 StGB presupposes that someone takes something away by force against a person or under threat of present danger to life or limb. It is also a robbery if someone makes another person incapable of resisting and then takes something away. With a maximum sentence of ten years in prison and the possibility of ordering a fine, however, the threats of punishment under Swiss law are milder than in Germany.

In Austrian criminal law , robbery is regulated in § 142 and § 143 StGB. Austrian law does not recognize the offense of predatory extortion. It treats predatory theft as a special case of theft that carries a milder threat of punishment than its German counterpart, since the theft is the defining element of the crime. The punishments for robbery largely correspond to those of German law: The minimum penalty for robbery is one year imprisonment. Qualifications and successful qualifications increase this punishment up to life imprisonment.

The French criminal law treats the robbery as a qualification of the theft, which is punishable by up to five years imprisonment. A higher threat of punishment compared to German law, however, provides for qualified forms of robbery, such as robbery with weapons, which is punishable by at least ten years' imprisonment. Extortion, which has an objective offense similar to that in German law, is subject to a milder punishment in its basic offense, but in certain cases it can be punished with life imprisonment.

In the criminal law of England and Wales , the concept of theft as a starting point for robbery is much broader than in German law and also includes, for example, the return of pledges ( Section 289 of the Criminal Code). In contrast to German jurisprudence, the English and Welsh courts also regard such acts as robbery in which the victim's prey is taken away from the victim less by the use of force than by speed. The threat of punishment for robbery is life imprisonment.

literature

  • Wolfgang Bittner: The term custody and its meaning for the systematics of property crimes . Südwestdeutscher Verlag für Hochschulschriften, Saarbrücken 2008, ISBN 978-3-8381-0051-7
  • Gunnar Duttge: §§ 249-256 . In: Dieter Dölling, Kai Ambos, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 3. Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-7129-8 .
  • Albin Eser, Nikolaus Bosch: §§ 249-256 . In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  • Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , §§ 249-256.
  • Urs Kindhäuser: Before §§ 249 ff - § 256 . In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  • Hans Kudlich: §§ 249-256 . In: Helmut Satzger, Wilhelm Schluckebier, Gunter Widmaier (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 3. Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28685-7 .
  • Kristian Kühl: §§ 249-256 . In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  • Katrin Lange: Society and Crime. Gangs of robbers in the 18th and early 19th centuries (= European university publications. Series 3: History and its auxiliary sciences. Vol. 584). Lang, Frankfurt am Main 1994, ISBN 3-631-46494-0 .
  • Stefan Maier: §§ 249-256 . In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Comment . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  • Günther Sander: §§ 249-256 . In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  • Joachim Vogel: Before §§ 249 ff - § 256 . In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .
  • Petra Wittig: §§ 249-256 . In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Hrsg.): Beckscher Online Comment StGB , 30th Edition 2016.

Web links

Wiktionary: Robbery  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Günther Sander: § 249 , Rn. 6. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  2. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Preliminary remarks on §§ 249 ff , Rn. 1. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  3. ↑ Günther Sander: § 249 , Rn. 1. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  4. ↑ Joachim Vogel: Before §§ 249 ff ., Rn. 13. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .
  5. ↑ Arndt Sinn: § 249 , Rn. 1. In: Jürgen Wolter: Systematic Commentary on the Criminal Code , 148th Supplement, 2015.
  6. ↑ Arndt Sinn: § 250 , Rn. 1. In: Jürgen Wolter: Systematic Commentary on the Criminal Code , 148th Supplement, 2015.
  7. ↑ Arndt Sinn: § 251 , Rn. 1. In: Jürgen Wolter: Systematic Commentary on the Criminal Code , 148th Supplement, 2015.
  8. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Preliminary remarks on §§ 249 ff , Rn. 29. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  9. ↑ BGHSt 41, 182 .
  10. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 13, marginal no. 4th
  11. ↑ BGHSt 20, 194 (195).
  12. ↑ BGHSt 1, 145 .
  13. ↑ Uwe Hellmann: Note on 3 StR 52/02 . In: Juristische Schulung 2003, p. 17.
  14. ↑ BGH, judgment of December 12, 1989, 1 StR 613/89 = criminal defense lawyer 1990, p. 262.
  15. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 249, Rn. 4b.
  16. ^ Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part I: Property offenses . 18th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68816-4 , § 7, Rn. 18th
  17. ↑ BGHSt 7, 252 (254).
  18. ↑ a b Urs Kindhäuser: § 249 , Rn. 6. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  19. ↑ Günther Sander: § 249 , Rn. 12. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  20. ↑ BGH, judgment of August 28, 1996, 3 StR 180/96 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 1997, p. 265 (266).
  21. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 249 , Rn. 8. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  22. ↑ Lorenz Bode: The demarcation of robbery and predatory extortion in legal case processing . In: Legal worksheets 2017, p. 110 (111).
  23. ↑ Hans Kudlich, Derya Aksoy: One, two or three? - On the relationship between robbery, robbery and extortion in case processing . In: Legal worksheets 2014, p. 81.
  24. ↑ BGHSt 7, 252 (255).
  25. ↑ BGHSt 14, 386 (390).
  26. ↑ Hans Kudlich: Preliminary remarks on §§ 249 ff , Rn. 11. In: Helmut Satzger, Wilhelm Schluckebier, Gunter Widmaier (ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 3. Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28685-7 .
  27. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Preliminary remarks on §§ 249 ff , Rn. 56. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  28. ↑ Joachim Vogel: Before §§ 249 ff ., Rn. 66. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .
  29. ↑ Nikolaus Bosch, Albin Eser: § 249 , Rn. 1. in: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  30. ↑ Gunnar Duttge: § 249 , Rn. 1. In: Dieter Dölling, Kai Ambos, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 3. Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-7129-8 .
  31. ↑ Gunnar Duttge: § 249 , Rn. 11. In: Dieter Dölling, Kai Ambos, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner (Eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 3. Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-7129-8 .
  32. ↑ Gunnar Duttge: § 249 , Rn. 10. In: Dieter Dölling, Kai Ambos, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 3. Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-7129-8 .
  33. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 255 , Rn. 2. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  34. ^ Diethelm Klesczewski: Criminal Law - Special Part: Textbook on Criminal Law of the Federal Republic of Germany . 1st edition. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2016, ISBN 978-3-16-152918-4 , Rn. 185
  35. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 249 , Rn. 10. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  36. ↑ BGHSt 4, 210 (211).
  37. ↑ BGHSt 30, 375 (377).
  38. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 249, Rn. 6th
  39. ↑ Joachim Vogel: § 249 , Rn. 36. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .
  40. ^ Wolfgang Joecks, Christian Jäger: Criminal Code: Study Commentary . 12th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-67338-2 , § 249, Rn. 25th
  41. ↑ Kurt Seelmann: Basic cases to the property offenses . In: Juristische Schulung 1986, p. 201 (203).
  42. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 2, marginal no. 64.
  43. ^ BGH, judgment of February 26, 1998, 4 StR 54/98 = criminal defense lawyer 1999, p. 315.
  44. ^ BGH, judgment of October 13, 2005, 5 StR 366/05 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2006, p. 38.
  45. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 249 , Rn. 20-21. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  46. ↑ BGH, judgment of October 15, 2003, 2 StR 283/03 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2004, p. 152.
  47. ↑ Günther Sander: § 249 , Rn. 32. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  48. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 249 , Rn. 4. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  49. ^ BGH, judgment of April 7, 1995, 2 StR 118/95 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 1996, p. 38 (38-39).
  50. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 249 , Rn. 28. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  51. ↑ BGH, judgment of July 1, 1998, 1 StR 183/98 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1998, p. 3130.
  52. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 14, marginal no. 2.
  53. ↑ Gunnar Duttge : § 244 , Rn. 16-17. In: Dieter Dölling, Kai Ambos, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 3. Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-7129-8 .
  54. ↑ BGHSt 4, 125 (127).
  55. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 4, marginal no. 3.
  56. ^ BGH, judgment of November 6, 1998, 2 StR 350/98 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1991, p. 135.
  57. ↑ a b BGHSt 45, 92 (93).
  58. ↑ BGHSt 48, 197 .
  59. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 224 , Rn. 5. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  60. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 250 , Rn. 2. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  61. ↑ Nikolaus Bosch, Albin Eser: § 244 , Rn. 5a. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  62. ↑ Roland Schmitz: § 244 , Rn. 17. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  63. ↑ Johannes Wessels, Thomas Hillenkamp: Criminal Law Special Part 2: Offenses against assets . 38th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2015, ISBN 978-3-8114-4036-4 , Rn. 275-276.
  64. ^ Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part I: Property offenses . 18th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68816-4 , § 4, Rn. 25th
  65. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 244 , Rn. 10. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  66. ↑ Joachim Vogel: § 244 , Rn. 16. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .
  67. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 4, marginal no. 22nd
  68. ^ BGH, judgment of June 3, 1998, 3 StR 166/98 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, Jurisprudence Report 1998, p. 294.
  69. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 244, Rn. 26th
  70. ↑ BGH, judgment of June 20, 1996, 4 StR 147/96 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1996, p. 2663.
  71. ↑ BGH, judgment of January 18, 2007, 4 StR 394/06 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2007, p. 332 (333).
  72. ↑ Günther Sander: § 250 , Rn. 47-48. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  73. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 250 , Rn. 27. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  74. ^ BGH, judgment of April 18, 2002, 3 StR 52/02 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2002, p. 2043.
  75. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 250 , Rn. 9. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  76. ↑ Günther Sander: § 250 , Rn. 50. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  77. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 250 , Rn. 10. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  78. ↑ BGHSt 46, 321 .
  79. ^ BGH, judgment of May 8, 2008, 3 StR 102/08 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2008, p. 687.
  80. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 250 , Rn. 32. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  81. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 250, Rn. 29
  82. ↑ Günther Sander: § 251 , Rn. 17. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  83. ^ A b Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part I: Property Offenses . 18th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68816-4 , § 9, Rn. 4th
  84. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: The connection between the basic offense and serious consequences in the offenses qualified for success. In: Goltdammer's Archive for Criminal Law 1996, p. 19 (35).
  85. ↑ Hans Kudlich: § 251 , Rn. 5. In: Helmut Satzger, Wilhelm Schluckebier, Gunter Widmaier (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 3. Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28685-7 .
  86. ↑ a b Albin Eser, Nikolaus Bosch: § 251 , Rn. 4. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  87. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 251 , Rn. 4. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  88. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 251, Rn. 5.
  89. ↑ Petra Wittig: § 251 , Rn. 4a. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Hrsg.): Beckscher Online Comment StGB , 30th Edition 2016.
  90. ↑ BGHSt 38, 295 .
  91. ^ BGH, judgment of 23 December 1998, 3 StR 319/98 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1999, p. 1039.
  92. ↑ Günther Sander: § 251 , Rn. 11. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  93. ↑ Petra Wittig: § 251 , Rn. 5. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Ed.): Beckscher Online Commentary StGB , 30th Edition 2016.
  94. ↑ Nikolaus Bosch: Comment on BGH, judgment of September 16, 2009, 2 StR 259/09 = Legal worksheets 2010, p. 229.
  95. ^ Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part I: Property offenses . 18th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68816-4 , § 9, Rn. 14-15.
  96. ↑ Günther Sander: § 256 , Rn. 1. In: Günther Sander (Ed.) :. 2nd Edition. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  97. ↑ Günther Sander: § 249 , Rn. 43. In: Günther Sander (Ed.) :. 2nd Edition. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  98. ↑ BGH, judgment of June 16, 1983, 2 StR 181/83 = criminal defense lawyer 1983, p. 363.
  99. ^ BGH, judgment of April 15, 2010, 5 StR 103/10.
  100. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 78a , Rn. 2. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  101. ↑ a b Urs Kindhäuser: § 249 , Rn. 33-36. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  102. ↑ a b Petra Wittig: § 249 , Rn. 12-13. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Hrsg.): Beckscher Online Comment StGB , 30th Edition 2016.
  103. ↑ Günther Sander: § 249 , Rn. 41. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  104. ^ BGH, judgment of May 3, 1963, 4 StR 131/63 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1963, p. 1413.
  105. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 251 , Rn. 12. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  106. ↑ BGHSt 39, 100 .
  107. ↑ a b c PKS time series 1987 to 2017. (CSV) Federal Criminal Police Office, May 8, 2018, accessed on October 10, 2018 .
  108. ↑ Joachim Vogel: Before §§ 249 ff , Rn. 3. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 . (accessed via De Gruyter Online).
  109. ↑ a b Gunnar Duttge: § 249 , marginal no. 2. In: Dieter Dölling, Kai Ambos, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 3. Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-7129-8 .
  110. ↑ Joachim Vogel: Before §§ 249 ff , Rn. 4. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 . (accessed via De Gruyter Online).
  111. ↑ Günther Sander: § 249 , Rn. 5. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  112. ↑ Albin Eser, Nikolaus Bosch: § 255 , Rn. 4. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  113. ↑ BGHSt 7, 252, 255; BGHSt 14, 386, 390
  114. ↑ Albin Eser, Nikolaus Bosch: § 253 , paragraphs 8, 31. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (ed.): Criminal Code: Comment . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  115. ↑ Günther Sander: § 252 , Rn. 1, 21. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  116. ↑ Gunnar Duttge: § 252 , Rn. 3. In: Dieter Dölling, Kai Ambos, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - subsidiary laws . 3. Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-7129-8 .
  117. ↑ Hans Kudlich, Derya Aksoy: One, two or three? - On the relationship between robbery, robbery and extortion in case processing . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2014, p. 81 (83).
  118. ↑ BGHSt 26, 95 (96).
  119. ^ Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part I: Property offenses . 18th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68816-4 , § 10, Rn. 1-2.
  120. ↑ BGHSt 26, 95 .
  121. ↑ BGHSt 5, 280 .
  122. ↑ BGHSt 33, 381 .
  123. ↑ Günter Sander: § 316a , Rn. 29. In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  124. ↑ BGHSt 49, 8 (11).
  125. ↑ Detlev Sternberg-Lieben, Bernd Hecker : § 316a , Rn. 1. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  126. ↑ Joachim Vogel: Before §§ 249 ff ., Rn. 71. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .
  127. ↑ Joachim Vogel: Before §§ 249 ff ., Rn. 70. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .
  128. ↑ Joachim Vogel: Before §§ 249 ff ., Rn. 72-73. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .
  129. ↑ Joachim Vogel: Before §§ 249 ff ., Rn. 77. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on September 8, 2017 .